In message ,
writes
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:27:13 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:08:40 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:39:10 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:


But many
analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and
actual numbers are irrelevant to this.


But only in participating gardens. That cannot be extended to whole
populations throughout the country, for the reasons I have given.

Your "reasons" are flawed because you don't (?won't, ?can't) understand
the concept of sampling.

Don't try to make it sound difficult, Malcolm :-)

I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to see
any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant.


So why don't you ask Malcolm how sampling in participating gardens
extends to the country as a whole?

That's already been explained.

No it wasn't. If you thnik it was, where was it explained?


And at the same time ask him if it matters if the counts are accurate
or not

No it doesn't AIUI.

Why not?


No one has yet answered this question and Malcolm studiously avoids
it.



I think they have but see my comment in my preceding post.

I have.

You said;

"I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to
see any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant".

So if you've scant knowledge of the subject how do you know that I
"appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis"?


You seem to persist in asking the same question over and over again
regardless of answers which in my book is the action of a troll so I
won't bother to reply to you again

Another quitter? They're falling like flies.

But before you go how would you like to be the first to answer the
question?



"Plonk"
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha

On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 20:04:22 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 20:27:13 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 21:08:40 +0000, hugh ] wrote:

In message ,
writes
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 09:39:10 +0000, Malcolm
wrote:


In article ,
writes
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:48:42 +0000, kay
wrote:


But many
analyses are simply looking at presence or absence of a species, and
actual numbers are irrelevant to this.


But only in participating gardens. That cannot be extended to whole
populations throughout the country, for the reasons I have given.

Your "reasons" are flawed because you don't (?won't, ?can't) understand
the concept of sampling.

Don't try to make it sound difficult, Malcolm :-)

I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to see
any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant.


So why don't you ask Malcolm how sampling in participating gardens
extends to the country as a whole?

That's already been explained.

No it wasn't. If you thnik it was, where was it explained?


And at the same time ask him if it matters if the counts are accurate
or not

No it doesn't AIUI.

Why not?


No one has yet answered this question and Malcolm studiously avoids
it.



I think they have but see my comment in my preceding post.

I have.

You said;

"I think you've hit the nail on the head Malcolm. He doesn't want to
see any answer which doesn't reinforce his preconceptions and he would
appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis, of
which I freely admit my own knowledge is rather scant".

So if you've scant knowledge of the subject how do you know that I
"appear to know nothing about the dark art of statistical analysis"?


You seem to persist in asking the same question over and over again
regardless of answers which in my book is the action of a troll so I
won't bother to reply to you again

Another quitter? They're falling like flies.

But before you go how would you like to be the first to answer the
question?



"Plonk"


Thought you couldn't.

wrote in message
...

Another quitter? They're falling like flies.

But before you go how would you like to be the first to answer the
question?



"Plonk"


Thought you couldn't.

Look on the bright side -no charge for membership and warm welcome to the
club (:-0)
Hullo there !

Regards
Pete

In message , Pete
writes


wrote in message
.. .

Another quitter? They're falling like flies.

But before you go how would you like to be the first to answer the
question?



"Plonk"


Thought you couldn't.

Look on the bright side -no charge for membership and warm welcome to
the club (:-0)
Hullo there !

Regards
Pete
It's very exclusive though - only the real top flight ******* get into
my kill file, but once in they stay in.
--
hugh
"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it, Or who said it, Even if
I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own
common sense." Buddha